Paper and Powerpoint

81. What Objects Mean, Second Edition by Arthur Asa Berger, 80–98. © 2014 . All rights reserved.

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture

If artifacts are simple objects showing human workmanship, it means that artifacts are made by others, either individual cra smen or, what is more usually the case, large numbers of workers in huge factories in distant places. In contemporary America, many of the objects we purchase are made in China or other cheap labor countries. �e object, then, is the tip of the iceberg, and below the seas, where we cannot see things clearly, there is human labor—labor that involves everything from designing objects, manufacturing them, transporting them, advertising them, and selling them.

Needs Versus Desires: Traveling Light and Arriving Heavy

Most of us have more “stu� ” (to use George Carlin’s term) than we need. How many pairs of pants, stockings, or shoes do we really need? �e fact is, we tend to accumulate more

What Objects Mean82.

than we need or can use. Recently, I started thinking about all the “stu� ” my wife and I have in our house: a piano, three sofas, a love seat, an old school bench, three leather Mexican chairs, two television sets, one of which is an LCD HDTV (20 inch), two desktop computers, two tablet computers, a dozen original oil paintings, one laptop computer, two cars, six clock-radios, eight pairs of old eyeglasses, three vacuum cleaners, three microwave ovens, �ve thousand books, three sets of china ware, two printers, one fax machine, one scanner, four telephones, a dishwasher, a washing machine, a dryer, a waste disposal system, four espresso machines, two co�ee grinders, two MP3 players, two hi-� sets, 200 CDs, and two cars…I could go on and on, and I haven’t said anything about my other clothes or my wife’s shoes, dresses, blouses, perfumes, or other things.

I haven’t mentioned the brands of the various objects we own—a ma�er of considerable importance to many people, as we shall see. For it isn’t only the objects you have that has to be consid- ered; the brands of the objects are of major signi�cance in the analysis of material culture. We can see the list of objects in my household, incomplete as it is, and from writer R ick Moranis’s catalogue of his possessions, which I’ve only sampled, that it is easy to get lots of pos- sessions and hard to get rid of them. “Get” is a nicer word than “buy” and doesn’t suggest that you’re paying money for things.

We all spend a good deal of time shopping, and when we shop we buy things—food, clothes, furniture, high-tech gizmos, CDs, stamps, cars… you name it. �is stu� ends up in our houses, and so we spend our lives surrounded by objects of all kinds that we’ve pur- chased or have been given—what we might describe as the objects of our a�ection. Our shopping and the things we buy—or things that we are given and thus possess—are one way we de�ne ourselves as persons to ourselves and to others, and we o en develop strong emo- tional a�achments to our possessions. �at explains why we are so reluctant to part with them.

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 83.

Rick Moranis on Material Culture

In a humorous article in the November 22, 2006, New York Times, writer Rick Moranis wrote a short essay, “My Days Are Numbered,” in which he pointed out that he has:

5 television sets 2 DVR boxes 3 DVD players 19 remote controls 3 computers 5 sinks 26 sets of linen 14 digital clocks

Most of us don’t have as many sinks, refrigerators, and take-out menus as Rick Moranis does, but if we make an inventory of our possessions, we’re generally surprised at how much “stuff” we have accumulated.

4 printers 2 non-working fax machines 2 answering machines 46 cookbooks 68 take-out menus from 4 restaurants 2 refrigerators 506 CDs, cassettes, etc. 9 armchairs

What Objects Mean84.

Marxist Theory and Alienation

Karl Marx developed a number of economic and psychological theories to explain the role of capitalism in the modern world. One of the primary factors leading people to focus their a�ention on purchasing things is alienation, by which Marx meant a separation or estrangement of man’s true nature from his sense of self. As he explained:

Every man speculates upon creating a new need in another in order to force him to a new sacri�ce, to place him in a new dependence, and to entice him into a new kind of pleasure and thereby into economic ruin. Everyone tries to establish over others an alien power in order to �nd there the satisfaction of his own egoistic need. (quoted in Fromm, 1962:50)

�ese “needs” are not real, Marxists argue, but are arti�cially imposed upon us by advertising agencies and marketers, who convince us we need to purchase this product or that gizmo if we are going to be really happy. We are alienated, Marx argues, because for most of us our work is “external” to us, and we only work so we can make money to live. As he wrote, “the life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force” (Fromm, 1962:170).

For Marxists, then, the objects and artifacts we possess are signi- �ers of the alienation we feel. We purchase things in order to assuage our sense of frustration with our situation—not recognizing, of course, why we are acting the way we do. Alienation, for Marx, a�ects everyone in bourgeois capitalist societies, not just workers. �is would suggest, then, that the more artifacts we feel we need to have, the more we are signifying our alienation and the more alienated we are. So big diamond rings worn by wealthy women are, from a Marxist perspective, indicators of alienation and estrangement—from others and from oneself. W hen you have big diamond rings and other expen- sive artifacts, you always have to worry about losing them or people trying to take them away from you by one means or another.

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 85.

Class Con ict

�e unequal distribution of goods leads to class con�ict, a basic Marxist theory. For Marx, history is the story of endless class con�ict. As he writes (quoted in Bo�omore and Rubel, 1964: 200):

�e history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open, �ght, a �ght that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

For Marx, the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production and form the ruling class, and the proletariat, who are the workers exploited by the bourgeoisie, are locked in a never-ending struggle. �e ruling classes avert class struggle by indoctrinating the members of the proletariat with what Marx called “false consciousness,” namely, ruling class ideas, such as the notion that everyone can succeed if they are willing to work hard enough (the “American Dream”). �e ruling classes also avoid class con�ict by making it possible for the prole- tariat to purchase goods and services that distract their a�ention from the class makeup of society and the unequal distribution of wealth.

The Role of Advertising

Advertising is for many Marxists the main engine of consumer culture in capitalist societies. It is not just a merchandizing tool but an industry that dominates everyday life and social relationships. A German Marxist, Wolfgang Haug, suggests in his book, Critique of Commodity Aesthetics, that the advertising industry has learned how to a�ach sexuality to objects and artifacts and to “aestheticize” them, enabling the ruling classes in capitalist societies to more fully exploit the masses. Advertising’s immediate goal is to sell artifacts and various kinds of products, but its long range goal is to turn people’s

What Objects Mean86.

a�ention away from their exploitation and justify the existence of a capitalist economic system.

Another Marxist theorist, Henri Lefebvre, argues that it is adver- tising that gives all objects their valuation. As he writes in his book, Everyday Life in the Modern World (1971:105):

In the second half of the twentieth century in Europe, or at any rate in France, there is nothing—whether object, individual or social group—that is valued apart from its double, the image that advertises and sancti�es it. �is image duplicates not only any object’s material, perceptible existence but desire and pleasure that it makes into �ctions situating them in the land of make-believe, promising “happiness”— the happiness of being a consumer.

W hat advertising has done, Lefebvre believes, is transform itself from an industry inducing people to buy objects and products to one that gives them, and everything else, value and status in people’s eyes. For Lefebvre, advertising has taken control of everyday life and gives everyone a�itudes and a sense of style that inform their purchases and their lives.

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 87.

An analysis of the system of objects must ultimately imply an analysis of discourse about objects—that is to say, an analysis of promotional “messages” (comprising image and discourse). For advertising is not simply an adjunct to the system of objects; it cannot be detached therefrom, nor can it be restricted to its “proper” function (there is no such thing as advertising strictly confined to the supplying of information). Indeed, advertising is now an irremovable aspect of the system of objects precisely because of its disproportioness. This lack of proportion is the “function” apotheosis of the system. Advertising in its entirety constitutes a useless and unnecessary universe. It is pure connotation. It contributes nothing to production or to the direct practical application of things, yet it plays an integral part in the system of objects, not merely because it relates to consumption but also because it itself becomes an object to be consumed.

Jean Baudrillard, The System of Objects (1996:164)

I discussed Baudrillard’s book The System of Objects earlier. Here he stressed the importance of advertising, which convinces us to buy all these objects—most of which we don’t really need. As advertising executives often explain, “our job is to convince you to buy things you didn’t know you needed.”

Thorstein Veblen and Conspicuous Consumption

�orstein Veblen (1857–1929) was a “radical” American economist who o�ered a di�erent perspective on the role of consumption in the United States. In his analysis of Veblen’s theories, Lewis Coser writes in Masters of Sociological �ought (1971:268–269):

Veblen is at his best when he analyzes the various means by which men a�empt to symbolize their high standing in the continuous

What Objects Mean88.

struggle for competitive advantage. Con- spicuous consumption, conspicuous lei- sure, conspicuous display of symbols of high standing are to Veblen some of the means by which men a�empt to excel their neighbors and so a�ain heightened self-evaluation.

We must be mindful, Veblen tells us, of the ultimate goal of conspicuous consumption— namely, an enhanced sense of self.

Coser argues that Veblen uses functional analysis in dealing with conspicuous con- sumption. As Coser explains (1971:271):

W hen Veblen describes the various mani- festations of the pa�ern of conspicuous consumption, he is always at pains to fer- ret out their latent functions. Manifestly, candles are meant to provide light and automobiles are means of transportation. But under the pecuniary scheme they serve the latent function of indicating and enhancing status. Candle light at dinner indicates that the host makes claims to a style of gracious living that is peculiar to the upper class....One serves caviar to symbolize the re�nement of the palate that is the mark of a gentleman.

It is necessary, Veblen suggests, to look for the hidden or latent functions of objects to fully understand the role they play in our lives. �e problem is that we can never feel satis�ed with what we have. As Veblen

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 89.

writes in �e �eory of the Leisure Class, “As fast as a person makes new acquisitions, and becomes accustomed to the new standard of wealth, the new standard forthwith ceases to a�ord appreciably greater satisfaction than the earlier standard did” (quoted in Coser 1971:268). �is means we are locked into a situation in which we can never stop yearning for new and be�er things, because we are always comparing ourselves with others who have more than we do.

Max Weber and Calvinist-Protestant Thought

Max Weber (1864–1920), an important German sociologist and one of the founding fathers of sociology, argues that Calvinist theology is behind the development of capitalism and the a�itudes people have towards their possessions. In his book, �e Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, he makes a couple of important points relevant to our interests. �e �rst involves what he describes as “worldly Protestant asceticism.”

Calvin argues that people should discard the Catholic medieval ascetic perspective on life, which he sees as a philosophy that “malig- nantly deprives us of the lawful enjoyment of the Divine bene�cence, but which cannot be embraced ’til it has despoiled man of all his senses and reduced him to a senseless block ” ( John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Reli- gion, quoted in Berger [2005:6]). We must distinguish, Calvin argues, between the

What Objects Mean90.

ascetic extreme, which stresses abstinence and reduces life to its bare necessities, and its opposite, which involves glu�ony and “fastidious- ness in our furniture, habitations, and our apparel” and other kinds of behavior that distract people from their religious obligations.

According to Max Weber, then, the “Protestant ethic” is behind the development of capitalism. Weber argues that the Protestant ethic loosened the grip on people’s minds of medieval notions about the value of poverty and justi�ed consumption as something that God wants people to do, something that has a divine signi�cance. If people were to consume things, they needed money—so hard work had to be glori�ed, and wasting time on non-productive pursuits a�acked. Weber uses the term asceticism to describe the Protestant perspective on life, but it is a di�erent kind of asceticism from the medieval, self- denying asceticism that Calvin had disparaged.

In addition to providing a hard working and diligent workforce, the Protestant ethic convinced people that their place in the scheme of things had been se�led by God. As Weber explains:

�e power of religious asceticism provided him [the bourgeois business man]... with sober, conscientious, and unusually diligent workmen, who clung to their work as to a life purpose willed by God. Finally, it gave him the comforting assurance that the unequal distribution of the goods of this world was a special dispensation of Divine Providence, which in these di�erences, as in particular grace, pursued secret ends unknown to men. (1958:177)

�is belief that there is a “Divine Providence” that justi�es the unequal distribution of wealth is a great comfort to those who form the ruling class, since it justi�es their position and lifestyle. And since Divine Providence determines our economic fate, e�orts to ameliorate the lives of the poor are fruitless. At the conclusion of his book, Weber discusses the ideas of R ichard Baxter, a Puritan minister, who believed that “the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the ‘saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment.’ But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 91.

cage” (Weber, 1958:181). Weber concludes his book arguing that “material goods have gained an increasing and �nally an inexorable power over the lives of men as at no previous period of history” (1958:181). Our passion to possess objects and artifacts now dominates our lives and has reached its highest level, he suggests, in the United States, where stripped of its religious basis, it has become something with the character of sport.

It is reasonable to suggest that although overtly we have cast o� the religious notions of the Calvinists, in the thinking of many people there still lingers a residue of the belief that those who have wealth are blessed by God. �e love of external goods, the pas- sionate desire to have things, and not just anything but the newest and most desirable things, has, it would seem, become Baxter’s iron cage in which most people now �nd themselves trapped.

Georg Simmel on Fashion

�e German sociologist Georg Simmel (1858–1918) o�ers us an insight into the role fashion plays in the economy. He talks about clothing, but fashion can be considered more broadly and understood to deal not only with new clothing styles but also with the development of the new models of artifacts we use. As he explains in his essay, “�e Philosophy of Fashion” (quoted in David Frisby and Mike Featherstone, 1997:192):

What Objects Mean92.

�e essence of fashion consists in the fact that it should always be exercised by only a part of a given group, the great majority of whom are merely on the road to adopting it. As soon as a fashion has been universally adopted, that is, as soon as anything that was originally done only by a few has really come to be practiced by all—as is the case in certain elements of clothing and in various forms of social conduct—we no longer characterize it as fashion. Every growth of a fashion drives it to its doom, because it thereby cancels out its distinctiveness.

Simmel points out an interesting process here: as soon as the exclusivity of a fashion becomes tainted by mass adoption, fashionistas and new adopters have to move on to something new. So there is a never ending chain of activity as items that are fashionable lose their distinctiveness when other items are created or newer versions are adopted, only to be replaced in turn by newer items. And capitalist economies are more than willing to create new products (such as MP3 players) and new versions of products (such as the iPod).

He also explains why women are so conscious of fashion. He main- tains that it is because of their social and political subservience that women pay so much a�ention to fashion. As he writes (1997:196):

Out of the weakness of social position to which women were condemned through the greatest part of history there arises their close relationship to all that is “custom,” to that which is “right and proper” to the generally valid and approved form of existence. For those who are weak steer clear of individualization; they avoid dependence upon the self, with its responsibilities and the necessity of defending oneself unaided. �ose in a weak position �nd protection only in the typical form of life.

So fashion consciousness, Simmel explains, has been a means by which women try to deal with their subservience and social and political weakness. W hether or not women are in fact such a group, we could say about all groups who are socially and economically marginal or weak that fashion plays an important role in their lives,

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 93.

though in some cases rather than blending in, they move in the opposite direction and use fashion to call a�ention to themselves.

Walter Benjamin and the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Walter Benjamin (1892–1940) was a German Marxist critic who was interested in the impact of mass production on objects. In a highly in�uential essay, “�e Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Benjamin dealt with what he described as the loss of “aura” in mass produced objects. He begins his essay with a discussion of mass production of works of art (in Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen,1974:613):

In principle a work of art has always been reproducible. Man-made artifacts could always be imitated by man. Replicas were made by pupils in practice of their cra , by masters for di�using their works, and �nally by third parties in pursuit of gain. Mechanical reproduction of a work of art, however, represents something new.

He then discusses a number of topics related to the ma�er of reproduction, includ- ing lithography and photography, pointing out that authenticity relies upon the presence of originals, which are a prerequisite for an object to be authentic. �is led to a discus- sion of what Benjamin calls “auras.” As he explains (1974:616):

What Objects Mean94.

�e authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has experienced. Since the historical testimony rests on the authenticity, the former, too, is jeopardized by reproduction when substantive duration ceases to ma�er. And what is really jeopardized when the historical testimony is a�ected is the authority of the object.

One might subsume the eliminated element in the term “aura” and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. �is is a symptomatic process whose signi�cance points beyond the realm of art. One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition.

W hat Benjamin argues is that reproduced objects, or in the case of brand name artifacts, imitations or reproductions (and fakes), are separated from the “auras” of original works and from tradition. Once authenticity becomes irrelevant, he suggests, art no long is based on ritual with its focus on the creative artist and the creative process.

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 95.

Most of the essay is concerned with �lm, which explains why it is reproduced in a book on �lm theory. But Benjamin’s notion about auras can be applied, with a slight twist, to all manner of artifacts, especially name brand ones like watches, handbags, perfumes, and clothing. One of the things that the person who owns the original painting by Jason Berger is purchasing, from Benjamin’s point of view, is Berger’s aura, his spirit, which is an important selling point.

W hen people purchase name band products, they are, in reality, purchasing the aura, the good name that becomes a�ached to the creator of the product or the brand. �e names of the creators of these artifacts are recognizable by their use of initials or logos found on such artifacts as sunglasses, wrist watches, handbags, jeans, cell phones, and fountain pens. �ere exists a vast industry of knock o�s that appropriate the logos of name-brand products but lack the aura of the real versions of these artifacts. For the people who use these knock o�s, the fact that they are using imitations is of li�le concern.

Authenticity and Postmodern Thought

One reason for this lack of concern about authenticity is because the concept is largely irrelevant in postmodern times. Postmodernism is an extremely complicated concept, but it has a number of central concerns, such as the notion that the overarching metaphysical systems that we used to believe in are no longer considered important. As the French scholar Jean-François Lyotard puts it, postmodernism is characterized by “incredulity toward metanarratives,” the grand philosophical systems that we once used to order our lives. Postmodernism also dissolves the boundaries between elite culture and popular culture and between original works of art and reproductions or imitations. So authenticity is not considered important in postmodern thought.

�e postmodernists argue that contemporary American culture is postmodern. �ey suggest that around 1960 there was a huge cultural swing from modernist thought, which valued the great metanarra- tives and authenticity, to postmodern thought, which mixes styles and adopts the pastiche as a cultural dominant. In postmodern societies,

What Objects Mean96.

then, knock o�s are perfectly acceptable, even desired, since they are a great deal less expensive than name brand originals.

John Berger on Advertising and Material Culture

John Berger is a British Marxist, who wrote a book (based on a series of BBC television shows) called Ways of Seeing (1978). It deals with painting and other elite arts, but also has a chapter on advertising—or what he calls “publicity.” As he explains (131–132):

Publicity is not an assembly of competing messages: it is a language in itself which is always being used to make the same general proposal. Within publicity, choices are o�ered between this cream and that cream, that car and this car, but publicity as a system only makes a single proposal.

5. Economic Theory, Marxism, and Material Culture 97.

It proposed to each of us that we transform ourselves, or our lives, by buying something more. �is more, it proposes, will make us, in some way richer—even though we will be poorer by having spent our money….Publicity is e�ective precisely because it feeds upon the real. Clothes, food, cars, cosmetics, baths, sunshine are real things to be enjoyed in themselves. Publicity begins by working on a natural appetite for pleasure.…Publicity is never a celebration of a pleasure-in-itself. Publicity is always about the future buyer. It o�ers him an image of himself made glamorous by the product or opportunity it is trying to sell. �e image then makes him envious of himself as he might be. Yet what makes this self-which-he-might-be enviable? �e envy of others. Publicity is about social relations, not objects.

�e point the Berger makes, that publicity is about social relations, is a bit misleading. W hat he is arguing, I would suggest, is that the objects we purchase play an important role in our social relations and that advertising is the engine that gives the objects we purchase their signi�cance for us.

Conclusions

�e objects and artifacts that play such an important role in our everyday lives—our cell phones, our digital watches, our blue jeans, our running shoes, and all the other items that we buy, can be understood by Marxists to be the means by which ruling classes distract Americans from recognizing their domination and the grossly unfair unequal distribution of wealth and income in this country. �e fact that people who are not wealthy can purchase knock o�s of the name brand products purchased by wealthy people may be functional for the ruling classes, since these knock o�s allow people to imitate the consumption pa�erns of the ruling elites in societies.

Sociologists Weber and Simmel are not Marxists, but they rec- ognize the importance of material goods to people as giving them a sense of their value and goodness. Weber discusses material culture

What Objects Mean98.

more broadly, tying our love of things to Calvinism and Protestant thought and an a�ack on medieval asceticism. Simmel focuses upon fashion, explains it is a social force based upon di�erentiation, and links women’s concern with fashion to their social subjugation.

Baudrillard o�ers a semiotically informed analysis of various kinds of material culture in his book, �e System of Objects, and points out the important role advertising has in consumer cultures. Walter Benjamin, another German thinker, calls our a�ention to the “auras” that he alleges distinguish original works of art from imitations. �is focus on originality and auras raises the question of authenticity and the postmodern perspective on culture, which argues that authen- ticity is irrelevant in contemporary societies, since the distinctions between original/imitation and elite/pop culture are held as spurious.

This page intentionally left blank

All theories of the past rely implicitly upon some concept of human nature: why humans behave the way we do, and how our behavior relates to our social and physical environment. In culture historical views, humans primarily act to repro- duce their peculiar cultural traditions; in func- tionalist views humans act in response to envi- ronmental conditions to maximize their chances of survival.… Material culture studies: like the body, material things are a medium through which we create ourselves and understand other people, and hence an inescapable element of social reproduction. Artefacts are a key to social relations and �ames of mind. Indeed, there has been considerable debate among archaeological theorists about whether things can be considered as agents in the same way that people can. Among the many ways in which material things relate to agency, we may note particularly technology as a system of social knowledge and embodied action, the use of everyday things to communicate subtle political meanings such as the authority of the state, the contextual use of material things to rede�ne or contest inherited meanings, and the question of the extent to which the archaeological record might be an intentional creation.

John Robb, in Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, eds., Archaeology: �e Key Concepts (2005)